Down the Money Rabbit Hole

Money Is Not What's Driving the Custody Crisis

Jan 24, 2024

The Money Rabbit Hole is one of the many quagmires women get caught in when trying to understand why they lost custody or could not protect their children in Family Court, a scourge known as the Custody Crisis.

This article is the latest in the series “Custody Crisis Rabbit Holes”, the central theme of which is that women are being misled and divided by various false narratives circulating in social media and elsewhere.

The goal of the series is to help mothers emerge from these rabbit holes and unite under a shared set of facts, so as to gain the power necessary to demand and implement effective change, thus ending the crisis.

The Money Rabbit Hole has three main branches: profiting, bribing and funding. Mothers can get stuck in one, two, or all three.

THE “PROFITING” BRANCH

The “Profiting” section of the Money Rabbit Hole is perhaps the most populous. A common cry of mothers is “It’s all about the money!!”

The belief here is that the problem is the massive profiteering by court-appointed and court-affiliated professionals. It is undisputed that lawyers, psychologists, evaluators, therapists, parenting coordinators, mediators, visitation supervisors, et. al. make a ton of money from contested custody cases.

There is no debate that there are plenty of ambulance-chasing, greedy professionals who will sell their grandmother for a buck, and, therefore, have no problem aiding and abetting selfish and abusive fathers.

Mothers often misinterpret what is happening as courts siding with the “abuser” (father or mother), which keeps the case going and hence the money flowing, because the protective “parent” (father or mother) won’t stop trying to protect their child.

But a deeper look indicates this is not the essence of the matter. It is virtually nonexistent for an abusive mother to be aided and abetted over the course of years in taking a child from a loving father, no matter how much profiting that would incur.

Some mothers insist that men are winning because they have the money. But there are plenty of cases in which the mother has as much or more money than the father, and she still loses custody.

Some activists like calling what is going on sex or child trafficking. However, trafficking is understood by the public to involve pimps who profit exclusively from selling children for sex or labor. It does not include a judge giving custody to a molesting father so court officials profit. They are two different things and it confuses the issue to call what is going on trafficking instead of systemic male entitlement.

THE “BRIBING” BRANCH

Another section of the Money Rabbit Hole is the bribing of court officials and appointees. Fathers can bribe judges and other court-allied officials directly or through their attorney or other cutouts. Judicial bribes can be disguised as campaign contributions in places where judges are elected. Property, vehicles and other resources can also be transferred covertly through LLC’s or other clandestine means to any court official instrumental in giving the father custody.

It may sound outrageous that fathers would go to such lengths and expense, but custody of children represents a huge financial interest over the long term. And it is not only monetarily valuable to fathers in the form of reduced or eliminated child support, it is beneficial as a means of continuing control in the family and punishing an ex for leaving or for perceived misbehavior, an invaluable perk.

In cases where there the father is sexually abusing the child(ren), which make up a substantial percentage of cases, this power is priceless. It enables fathers to silence children and continue their abuse, while precluding accountability for their crimes, civilly and criminally. Whatever they spend is likely a bargain compared to the alternative.

Of course, there is no way to prove bribery is occurring since, by definition, it is covert. However, mothers often strongly suspect it and a few have been lucky enough to prove it.

The important point is, though, that bribery is a gendered form of power. Men are systemically allowed to bribe; whereas, if a mother dared to bribe someone to help her illegally retain custody, she would be castigated and likely end up in prison.

THE “FUNDING” BRANCH

A third way mothers are being diverted from understanding the true nature of the crisis is when they are led to believe government funding is the source of the problem. Although Fatherhood funding is the overt culprit, as it blatantly exists to benefit men, funding targeted for women is also being diverted to help fathers.

FATHERHOOD FUNDING

Fatherhood funding is justified under the guise of “promoting responsible fatherhood”. It is actually part of the backlash against women gaining financial independence, and, hence, the ability to walk out on an abusive husband or partner.

One of the justifications for this funding is the propaganda that father absence is extremely damaging to children, and, by extension, an abusive or otherwise undeserving-of-custody father is better than no father at all. [This is not supported by the research.]

This fraudulent ideology provides the basis for government doling out millions of dollars to programs that help fathers get custody of children. The programs also fund research and training which are discriminatory in nature, supporting the false premise that frequent visitation with fathers, abusive or not, is necessary for children’s well-being.

A common cry of mothers deprived of custody is “Where’s the motherhood funding?” This implies that if the government provided equal funding for mothers, it would stop mothers from losing custody. Unfortunately that is not true because even mothers with the best attorneys money can buy are losing custody.

VAWA FUNDING

Something that may be surprising to many is that VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) funding often results in helping fathers get custody, and, conversely, harming the women it purports to help.

Tens of Millions of dollars go to states for custody related programs through VAWA. The “Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act” in the newly revised and authorized VAWA has been much heralded by PPO’s [protective “parent” organizations]; however, it will do little to help mothers maintain custody or protect their children.

This act requires courts to “prioritize child safety” which is already in the law under the “best interests of the child” doctrine, so that won’t make any difference. And, since judges are deeming mothers liars, alienators and mentally ill, “prioritizing child safety” aids in taking children from falsely accused mothers.

The money also goes to training judges and other court officials and requiring the use of qualified professionals and evidence-based therapies. But training is not the problem, as evidenced by judges deliberately minimizing, disregarding, and concealing evidence, all the while fabricating negative evidence about mothers. And the training that is being conducted is often discriminatory to women.

The bottom line is that since cases are being deliberately spun to fathers, no amount of education or qualifying of practitioners will correct.

The new Act’s requirement of scientifically-based therapies will also not provide much of an obstacle. Children can still be subjected to (the misnamed) reunification/deprogramming—really coercing/programming kids to recant abuse and comply with living with their abuser—through licensed psychologists who claim their methods are evidence based.

So VAWA money is at best useless and at worst, it helps fathers take children from mothers. It's a shame Angelina Jolie was bamboozled into supporting the new VAWA provisions when she could use her platform to help make changes that will actually help mothers like her keep custody and protect children.

COMMON DENOMINATOR

How do we know money is not the core cause of the Crisis? By looking for the common denominator in all Custody Crisis cases over time and space.

TIME: Some of the earliest recorded Custody Crisis cases were in the ‘70’s when there was no cottage/divorce industry or federal funding. But judges were doing then what they are doing now: calling women liars and disregarding and concealing evidence of abuse or unfitness by fathers. Evaluators, minor’s counsels, therapists and others were gradually added over the decades as they provide a basis for doing what they would do anyway: switching custody to fathers.

SPACE: The crisis is not limited to one country, or even a few. Around the world, in any country where women have gained a right to custody, judges are empowering fathers to take children away from mothers. Many of these countries do not have a large amount of profiteering or any federal funding to courts, so money is not the problem there.

The common denominator is judges everywhere, ever since women gained a right to custody, are wrongly switching custody from good, loving, primary nurturing mothers to abusive, unfit, or otherwise undeserving-of-custody fathers, regardless of related money issues. Money is just the fuel on a fire that already exists and will continue to exist even if profiting, bribing and funding are eliminated.

A HYDRA-LIKE PROBLEM

The Money Rabbit Hole is just one of many which divert from understanding the true nature and cause of the Custody Crisis. Others include the “Parental Alienation Rabbit Hole”, the “Abuse Rabbit Hole” and “Laws & Rights Rabbit Hole” and the “Gender Neutral Rabbit Hole” [upcoming articles].

Why go to all the trouble of identifying the core cause of the Custody Crisis? Does it really even matter what the core cause is and which are peripheral contributors?

Yes, it’s extremely important. It is only by attacking the root of the problem that the scourge of Family Court empowering fathers to take children from loving mothers can be eliminated. The Rabbit Holes metaphor is meant to help women understand how they are being diverted from this task, but another analogy may be useful too.

Hercules was only successful in slaying the many-headed serpent, Hydra, by cutting off its primary head. Cutting off other heads only resulted in regeneration of more heads.

Likewise, if only the symptoms of the Custody Crisis are attacked, such as financial motivations, it will not make a dent. New ways of switching custody to fathers will emerge. The primary head, the core cause, of the Custody Crisis must be eliminated.

So what is the core cause and how can it be eliminated?

The core cause is Systemic Male Entitlement and Family Court is the system created to effectuate that. So, ideally Family Court should be eliminated completely, but at the very least, custody cases must be moved to a regular civil court.

The Child Custody Act provides for a new system that accomplishes this. It encompasses extra due process protections that include the prohibition of any court-affiliated professionals, such as children’s attorneys, evaluators, or therapists. This would essentially eradicate the profiteering, the so-called cottage industry.